[Mad Dawg]

At this point in the conversation, what I believe has nothing to do with your incomprehensible claims about the Catechism.

You can note all you like about my refusal to answer. I am not hiding it.

At PRESENT I REFUSE TO ANSWER HARLEYD's QUESTION ABOUT WHAT I BELIEVE ABOUT THE ATONEMENT.
WHY? BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE ORIGINAL TOPIC AND BECAUSE HIS INTERPRETATION OF THE CATECHISM LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT HE IS LIKELY TO MISINTERPRET ANYTHING I MIGHT WRITE.

So go ahead and note to your hearts content. I will add that you did not answer my question about whether you had read Cur Deus Homo or not, and I did not object. My question was at least relevant since the topic you introduced was not my belief but the teaching of the Catholic Church on Atonement and how it has developed. Asking for a confession of faith from me was and is a change of the topic which you brought up.

I am in a quandary. The only explanations I can come up with for how you would miss the plain meaning of the sections we posted from the Catechism's discussion of the atonement would fall under the mind-reading rubric, so I cannot say them.

All I can say is that I know of no other person who has read (or who claims to have read) that part of the Catechism and who says it teaches the exemplary doctrine of the atonement and no other. In fact, I thought it gave the exemplary doctrine rather short shrift.

So we cannot communicate or will not if we pursue this subject. It is as if we both looked at a house and you said, "It is short, round, and grey," and I said "it is tall angular and green." So I see no point in proceeding further.

[Judith Anne]

It is entirely possible that some (not all) of our separated brethren are playing with us.

Kind of silly. Surely the Lord Almighty I AM will not ask us, at our personal judgement, why we did not jump to their commands and take their silly games seriously. They will be happy to exhaust us by asking the same thing over and over and over again, neglecting our answers in favor of their repetitious demands.

Is there ANY non-Catholic that is unaware of the Catholic Catechism, or that it is online, free? And why should we, here, be held accountable for the actions of some artist in South America, who may or may not be Catholic, who may or may not be ignorant? And how, in the Holy Name of Christ, are we supposed to read the mind of a deceased saint and serve up to a non-believer a precise interpretation of the minutiae (as opposed to a general overview) in a vision’s description, which was written in another language 70 years ago?

I think that, at times, threads like this are a colossal waste; other times, not so much. There are those who sincerely ask a question, and sincerely appreciate an effort to answer honestly.

Discernment is a GOOD thing.